Your rant was timely. As usual, Keith's skillful moderation acknowledged
both sides of this important discussion.
Current events suggest that YOU are the best filter on internet information.
Thanks to Keith for the lesson on the mission of this discussion group. I
think it has broader significance this week.
Although I too grow weary of all these posts from a single subscriber on
such a variety of topics, it is a great benefit to merely filter what is
useful and ignore the rest.
The free flow of information is exactly what makes this discussion board
worth following.
Regards,
Ric
- Original Message -
From: David Penfold [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 7:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] FAO SurpriseShan2
Keith,
I wasn't trying to get her contributions banned, merely to get her to be a
bit more selective. But, yes, I guess I can just delete. I have actually
found some of her stuff quite interesting.
It was an allergic reaction, and I guess it was out of order. So ignore my
little rant...
David
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Sustainablelorgbiofuel Digest, Vol 23, Issue 12
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 00:10:09 +0200
Send Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list submissions to
sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can reach the person managing the list at
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than Re: Contents of Sustainablelorgbiofuel digest...
Today's Topics:
1. Lilly Sold Drug for Dementia Knowing It Didn?t Help
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
2. Re: FAO SurpriseShan2 (Keith Addison)
3. Re: FAO SurpriseShan2 (Adrian Higgs)
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 18:34:11 +0900
From: Keith Addison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Biofuel] FAO SurpriseShan2
To: biofuel@sustainablelists.org
Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii ; format=flowed
Thankyou Michelle, indeed so, well put.
David,
I have subscribed for some time now without much, if any
contribution. There is a variety of topics posted here for
discussion. Many of which I delete without reading, but I am
thankful these people are allowed to post and share their knowledge
and/or concern for things they think we should be aware of. Many of
these readers/contributors have a niche in a certain interest or
topic that would take me lifetimes of reading, research, and
understanding to acquire. I am thankful they are allowed to post.
On occasion I feel it necessary to speak up and defend the posts
because I have learned so much from this website. I am thankful for
the broad and specific, on topic and off topic, and the ever
enriching environment that is encouraged.
Michele
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: sustainablelorgbiofuel@sustainablelists.org
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2009 00:25:24 +0200
Subject: [Biofuel] FAO SurpriseShan2
With all due respect, while I'm sure your posts are of interest
to us all, I'm not sure of the relevance to the raison d'etre of
this list.
It's a sustainability list really, and so it must deal with
non-sustainability too, and there are all these grey areas where the
various issues merge into each other. Energy affects just about
everything, lots of dots to join up, you can start just about
anywhere, it's all connected. Where one draws the relevance line
depends on your point of view, and with a worldwide membership not
many people would draw it in the same place. (That's part of its
strength.) Much better to leave it open than to try to restrict it.
There was a lot of fighting about this eight or nine years ago, and
that was the consensus in the end. It's in the list rules: No calls
for restricted discussion. It's a discussion list, not a
less-discussion list. No topic-cops.
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg70818.html
[Biofuel] List rules
With open discussion nobody's deprived of anything, but trying to
keep the discussions strictly on-topic would deprive those who don't
see it that way. Also, the highly useful list archives would have
much less depth than it's accumulated through open discussion.
Anyway, nobody's forced to read anything, messages have subject
titles, if you're not interested don't read them.
Personally, it's like a flashback to all my mother's emails from
Dr Briffa. At least I could tell her to stop.
:-) Or just not read them. See
http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg21651.html.
All best
Keith
No offence meant,
David
_
More than messages–check out the rest of the Windows
